Rapid Response for Catastrophic Accidents Only

Call 1.877.999.7678

Product Liability

Packaging Assembly Line

We represent manufacturers and distributors in significant product liability matters. Our lawyers have significant experience in claims of alleged defect, breach of warranty and failure to warn cases.

Lawyers from FHMS have served as regional counsel for the world’s largest manufacturer of durable medical equipment for the past 30 years. That representation, among others, has given us great experience in the often difficult interplay of the manufacturer and distributor relationship and provided real case examples of the issues involving indemnity, warranty and risk transfer. We appreciate the need to carefully assess our clients business position in each matter.

We have also handled a broad range of allegedly defective products including, firearms, sporting goods, home appliances, food products and industrial machinery, among many others.

  • Gregory S. Hirtzel: Defended a major automotive parts supplier in a product liability failure to warn claim involving a 23 year old plaintiff who survived 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 90% of his body and was placed in an induced coma for over 3 months. The product at issue was an incandescent trouble (drop) light which the client imported from China and sold under its brand name as meeting OSHA standards. It was alleged the drop light ignited aspirated fuel vapors which engulfed Plaintiff in flames when a coworker at the engine compartment blew compressed air through the fuel line of a vehicle which plaintiff was attempting to remove the gas tank from at ground level. The drop light at the time was hung under the vehicle from its frame. The commercial garage where Plaintiff was working allegedly constituted a “hazardous environment” under OSHA guidelines and the NEC. Plaintiff contended not only that the Defendant failed to properly warn of the risk of harm which caused Plaintiff’s injuries, but also that the representation on the product’s packaging that it “Meets OSHA Standards” was knowingly and deliberately false. The case was defended on product identification, adequacy of product warnings, misuse and spoliation, as well as on causation under the theory that the “end user” of the product was the owner of the commercial repair shop, who admitted that he was aware, independent of any warning on the product, that the droplight should not be used around combustible vapors or liquids. All tenders pursuant to vendors endorsement and requests for indemnity by the downstream vendor’s and retailer were successfully rejected, and the matter settled and the matter settled for an amount acceptable to the client.
  • Joseph F. McNulty: Represented a local Lehigh Valley water amusement park in litigation involving an attorney/Plaintiff who sustained a significant knee injury on a purportedly defective water trampoline. Immediately following Plaintiff’s deposition, where the issue of his knowledge and understanding of the release and waiver that he had signed was explored in depth, Plaintiff dropped his $300,000 demand to the park and entered into a joint tortfeasor settlement for $2,500 and continued his action solely against the manufacturer.
  • Joseph F. McNulty: Retained immediately following the loss by oxygen concentrator manufacturer to lead the investigation into a house fire in western Pennsylvania purportedly caused by the product. Examined the product and fire scene with cause and origin and mechanical experts along with Plaintiff’s subrogation counsel and his experts. Convinced opposing counsel to take the product to an independent product expert who promptly examined the product in the presence of both counsel and determined it to have been a victim of the fire, not a cause of the fire. No subrogation was pursued.
  • Andrew J. Spaulding: Represented the manufacturer of a racking system in a warehouse. The racking system collapsed, pinning the 47 year old plaintiff by the ankle in his forklift. Plaintiff required an ankle fusion and 12 follow-up surgeries. After joining the designer of the system and the maintenance company, we moved to mediation where a favorable settlement was reached.